It’s ‘All About’ What
This may be the only country where you can lose an election and win it at the same time. Hillary won the primary in Pennsylvania but the New York Times says she should get out of the race because her campaign reached new lows in decency. (My words, their suggestion). Barack Obama lost the Primary by ten points but his campaign insists it was a win because he closed a 25 point gap and only lost by 10 points. Can someone win and lose at the same time? I guess so if you realize it’s ‘all about’ nuance.
Let’s pause here for a minute and figure out what this all means in the long run. Actually, let’s try to figure out what exactly ‘all about’ means. I remember the first time I heard the expression I asked myself, (it’s something I do with great frequency because I get the answers I want), is there a synonym for ‘all about’? Or, is there another way to say the same thing? At first I absolutely refused to use the two words together in a sentence. Then, like with ‘duh’ and finishing a stupid statement with ‘not’, I kind of slipped, rather than plunged into it. While I still think there must be a better way to describe a situation, it’s just simpler to use this overused expression. Now, as I was saying, this campaign season is ‘all about’ nuance and maybe nasty, too.
Barack Obama is not good at nasty, it’s not his style. Hillary Clinton it turns out, is excellent at nasty and makes no apologies for it. Instead she says it’s just a sign that she can be tough. Does this mean that Obama can’t be tough because he’s not good at rolling around in the mud-or bowling. What does it mean to be tough? And is going for the jugular a sign that you can lead a nation. Honestly, I don’t think that any of this rhetoric is important when it comes to deciding who the next President should be. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter who wins the next few primaries because it’s not winner take all - so the numbers aren’t going to change much. There are however, things we should look at as indicators. I’ll come back to that.
Last night we were at an excellent party with Obama supporters. Needless to say, they were disappointed by the results but still supportive of the candidate. One guest, Susan Eisenhower (yes the granddaughter of the President) made some truly insightful comments. (This was right after she told the story about how the President [ her grandfather] didn’t have Secret Service once he left the White House, so his son had to drive him home. He might actually driven, but he didn’t have a driver’s license). Susan said that her decision, as a Republican, to support Obama was based on a number of things. Not the least of which was personal courage. She said that, while she agreed John McCain was courageous during his years as a prisoner, Obama displayed great personal courage everyday because he took his life in his hands every time he left his house, and went out in public to campaign for this critical job.
As I see it Obama has two real problems to overcome if he wants to convince Super Delegates to stay or go with him and if he wants to win in the fall. Here they are from my limited but not inexperienced perspective. It’s not too early to develop more of a national strategy–rather than a state to state determination of what to do next. Presently, every state is a local campaign but the “local’ stuff is going to go away soon. As I said, I would be more concerned if the next primaries were winner take all. Just as an example, one of the things you do with National vision, is have a National Surrogate strategy. For example, I did not know that David Boren, Sam Nunn, and Lee Hamilton endorsed Obama. Why aren’t they out there with Susan Rice talking about international issues? Or why isn’t Susan Eisenhower or her sister-in-law Julie Nixon, on TV everyday talking about the courage of this candidate. I expect there are many more of these examples, but you get the point. There seems a hesitancy to utilize the strengths of people who want nothing more than to be used - everywhere.
The second thing they have to do is stop dealing with women as a constituency. When you are more than 50% of the population you are not a constituency– you are a voter. Maybe with certain issue priorities — but a voter, nonetheless. I really believe older white women would to commit to Obama if he would assure them that women will have a voice in his administration and that he understands their priorities and concerns. Maybe even name a few - but be specific to how it will impact on their lives. He has said almost nothing. A statement on a special occasion doesn’t do it. So where else can women turn? I think it’s great to run the campaign from Chicago. I think it’s even smart. It does not matter where the National campaign headquarters is housed as long as the people who are housed there have ongoing National perspective. But where women are concerned they also have to stop treating every group in Washington like they’re the enemy. — and like it’s inevitable that “old white gals’ as some friends would say, will be with Hillary - for eternity. Because whatever else, the Democrats want them too, and not for McCain. Besides, some of these ‘gals’ can make a real difference.
One of the Obama campaign’s great strengths is that they have raised a lot of money and spent it wisely. If they outspent the Clinton’s 4 to 1 in Pennsylvania it was because they had to come from behind to appear competitive. But the important thing is that from the beginning, they showed good political judgment in raising the money and in how it was spent. The Clinton campaign could have done the same thing but they spent too early, and they didn’t raise enough to spend past February. Nope, they are in debt and celebrating the fact that the win in Pennsylvania means she is still ‘viable’. Code for “now she can raise more money to spend on consultants and advisors who have her wallowing in the mud.” It’s unattractive at best-and let’s face it, for ‘gals’ unattractive is ultimately not what it’s ‘all about’.
